impersonals in lithuanian and slavic

ZfSl 50 (2005) 2, 147-160

Andrii Danylenko

Impersonal constructions with the accusative case in Lithuanian and Slavic (A Reply to Axel Holvoet)

Summary

In this paper, Lithuanian impersonais are explored in comparison with corresponding Polish, Ukrainian, and Beiarusian constructions. Special emphasis is placed on the historical substitution of the nominative by the accusative case in Lithuanian. Contrary to Holvoet who has recently postulated a "natural shift" from an agreeing passive construction with the neuter passive participle towards an impersonal construction in both Lithuanian and Polish, dialectal and diachronic evidence is cited to refute this claim. Subsequently, partial introduction of the accusative case marking in some (High) Lithuanian dialects, as well as in literary Lithua-nian, is related primarily to heavy Polish adstratum interference throughout the Polish-Lithuanian Union (1569-1795).

1. Introductory remarks

In a recent study of impersonal and passive constructions in Baltic and Finnic, Holvoet (2001, 376-377) mentioned that the Lithuanian passive shows at least two features remi-niscent of impersonais. The „original object" may be promoted to subject (1) or retained in the accusative case (2), with the participle being in the neuter singular form:

(1) Lith. Dürys atidaryta ir palikta door: NOM.PL. open: PPP .N.SG. and leave: PPP .N.SG. ,The door was opened and left (open).'

(2) Lith. Sävo zem^ myläa One's own country: F.ACC.SG. love: PPP .N.SG. ,One's own country was loved.'

While referring to Ambrazas (1990, 200ff.), Holvoet (2001, 377) went on to claim that this case marking reflects a „natural shift" from an agreeing passive construction with the neuter passive participle towards an impersonal construction, as is attested in Polish. He also notes that this feature is found in Lithuanian, but not in Latvian. Having adjusted its impersonal and passive constructions to the Finnic model, the Latvian passive, according to Holvoet, proves to be more similar to an impersonal, being consistently agentless (cf Endzellns 1951, 561, 983-984). Holvoet's thesis about a „natural shift" appears, however, somewhat controversial, from two points of view. Although not accounted for in the latest functional grammar of Lithuanian (Valeckiene 1998, 280-285), this shift fits well into the confmes of the func-tional teleology, which is reasonably criticized by Bybee et al. (1994, 298-299) who are

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Axel Holvoet (Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vil-nius, Lithuania), William R, Schmalstieg (Pennsylvania State University, USA), and Diana Gosselin-Nakeeb (Pace University, NYC, USA) for valuable comments and suggestions for revision of earlier versions of this article. Any opacity, which remains is, to be sure, mine.

Brought to you by | Harvard UniversityAuthenticated

Download Date | 12/14/14 2:17 AM

148 ZfSI50 (2005)2

inclined to admit a sociolinguistic basis for most linguistic changes. I believe that lan-guages do not inevitably drift towards typological consistency, e. g., towards the emer-gence of the accusative case in Lithuanian impersonals, since they do not necessarily evolve in the direction of features that are acquired early. From this it follows that gram-maticahzation of the nominative patient-saHent object is not necessarily irreversible in view of the role of the sociolinguistic factors, particularly in adopting phonological and morphosyntactic features from neighboring dialects with high prestige (Thomason and Kaufman, 1988, 121ff.). On the other hand, Holvoet's claim looks quite vague in view of some arguments ad-vanced lately by Ambrazas (2001; id. 1997, 207-208) who draws a parallel between the accusative replacing the nominative case in the impersonal environment and in infmitive constructions in Lithuanian and Latvian dialects. What is more remarkable is that Am-brazas posited a „progressive substitution of the nominative object by the accusative" pri-marily for the Latvian dialect area, and not for Lithuanian, where the nominative seems to have been preserved in its East Aukstaitian dialect, as well as in Western Lithuania, par-ticularly in the Zemaitian dialect. Following a commonly accepted model of the West Finnic influence on the development of the Baltic (and Slavic) nominative „semantic ob-ject" used with the infmitive or neuter passive participles, Ambrazas (2001, 408) assumed that the replacement of the nominative case by the accusative in newly formed impersonal constructions was brought about by a gradual waning of the Baltic- and Slavic-Finnic con-tacts after the 6th-7th c. AD. The above thesis about the „progressive substitution" as a kind of natural shift for East Baltic appears, however, less persuasive, especially if one recalls Ambrazas' (2001, 407) claim that the replacement of the nominative by the accusative was intensified in most Latvian dialects after the demise of West Finnic interference. The latter hypothesis looks even murkier in light of the West Firmic nominative object rule, which might have been operative during the Baltic-Finnic contacts, while presumably spreading over Latgalian, Semigalian and Curonian dialects in Latvian and subsequently over Lithuanian (see Tim-berlake 1974, 220). As a result, it is not clear why the emergence of the accusative case was triggered in Latvian after the Bahic-Finnic contacts came in fact to naught, and not in Lithuanian, which had been less exposed to the West Finnic influence. Consequently, its most archaic, West Aukstaitian dialect should have followed an indigenous developmental line, leading in particular to a „natural" substitution of the nominative subject by the accu-sative object goyemed by an Infinitive in the impersonal environment. Since any such trend died out in this and other dialect areas, a question arises as to how to reconcile a hy-pothetical West Finnic impact with the shift from the patient-salient nominative to the ac-cusative object. Such a shift appears to have taken place in infmitive constructions in the Zemaitian dialect (Ambrazas 2001, 405) and in impersonal constructions in the East Aukstaitian and Dzükian dialects (LKG, II, 53). Holvoet's theory about a „natural shift" in Lithuanian from an agreeing passive construc-tion with nominative subject towards an impersonal construction with accusative object Warrants additional consideration, especially vis-ä-vis the corresponding Slavic material. Having reviewed a similar shift in Slavic (Danylenko 2003, 316-324), I will try to sub-stantiate new diachronic and dialectal aspects of Lithuanian impersonals as opposed to Polish, Ukrainian, and with some reservations (see section 3) Belarusian (BH, II, 223),



A. DANYLENKO, Impersonal constructions with the accusative case in Lithuanian and Slavic 149

which all manifest a consistently accusative type of the impersonal „syntactic isogloss" (Sjatkovskij 1963, 70). This accusative type seems to be at variance not only with the northern Russian perfect, traditionally explained by West Finnic or North Germanic influ-ence (Timberlake 1974; Drinka 2003, 9-10), but, as I will try to show, it is at variance with structurally analogous constructions in Lithuanian.

2. On the „ activization " of Lithuanian impersonals

At first glance, Holvoet's explanation suggests a so-called activization of the old non-agreeing construction, with the etymological nominative being replaced by an accusative case in certain Slavic and Baltic languages (Schmalstieg 1988, 36). Schmalstieg (2002) has recently identified a similar process in the Baltic and Germanic languages, in particu-lar in Old English, which is characterized by a historical transitivization of its dental pret-erit (weak verbs) in the impersonal envirormient. Yet, more remarkable in light of the Pol-ish-Lithuanian parallel, mentioned by Holvoet (2001, 365; see Matthews 1955, 360-362), appears the term „activization" which was first introduced by Gol^b (1975:29) to denote the possibility of the complementation of a formerly passive verb by a direct object: Pol. dorn (house: acc.sg.m.) ten zbudowano (build: PPP.n.sg.) w 1915 ,This house has been built in 1915' in place of Pol. dorn (house: nom.sg.m.) ten zostal (became) zbudowany (build: PPP.m.sg.) w 1915 ,The house was buih in 1915'. The above line of reasoning may appear sufficiently persuasive to assume a similar „natural shift" (parallel development?) in Lithuanian and Polish, and by extension in Ukrainian, although some dialectal (see sec-tion 3) and diachronic evidence (see section 4) in Lithuanian can make this thesis look somewhat controversial.

3. Dialect data

To Start with, in some East Aukstaitian {aukstaicii^ tarme) dialects, one comes across con-structions, which, strikingly reminiscent of the non-agreeing pattern in North Russian, regularly follow the ergative-like argument alignment with the patient-salient noun in the nominative (LKG, 11, 52; Ambrazas 1979, 281; Paulauskiene 1979, 105). It is worthwhile mentioning here one of the most telling examples, cited from Geitler (1875, 61) onward (Leskien 1919, 80; Fraenkel 1921, 36; Rygiski4 [Jablonskis] Jonas 1922, 141, Ambrazas 1979, 281), taken from the „Anyksciii silelis" of Antanas Baranauskas (1835-1902), him-self a Speaker of the Aukstaitian dialect:

(3) Lith. Seni/ miskai myldta tülon giesmen däa o l d : G E N . P L . f o r e s t : M . N O M . P L . l o v e : P P P . N . S G . m a n y s o n g : I L L A T . S G . p u t : P P P . N . S G .

,The ancients loved forests and made many songs about them, müsi{ teveliii visos tos giesmes mokäa our a n c e s t o r : M . G E N . P L . a l l : F . A C C . P L . t h i s : F . A C C . P L . s o n g : F . N O M . P L . know:PPP.n.sg. our ancestors knew all these songs.'

From the historical perspective, it would be instructive to note that similar non-agreeing constructions, with the nominative case and a neuter predicate, are also attested in modern dialects of Vilnius, Trakai, Eisiskes and some other regions in southeastern Lithuania. This territory has long been characterized by intensive contacts between Balts and Slavs.



150 ZfSI 50 (2005) 2

These contacts might have brought about extensive structural borrowing in Lithuanian from the „common" (Belarusian) language or Border Polish („polszczyzna litewska") as historically dominant languages of this dialectally mixed area, in addition to heavy post-1795 interference from Russian (see map in Zinkevicius 1996, 318). Yet, despite their long contacts with Slavs, the Lithuanian speakers, according to Grinaveckene [Gri-naveckiene] (1972, 397-399), seem to have largely retained in their vernacular indigenous language traits proper to the western Dzükian (West Aukstaitian) dialect, while demon-strating some „common" Slavic-Lithuanian features, primarily in syntactic patteming. Among those common features, Grinaveckene [Grinaveckiene] (1972, 406-407) cited in particular impersonal constructions with the nominative case and a non-agreeing past pas-sive participle, a rather cautious assumption contrasting with a more radical claim by Leskien (1919, 77, 214). He argued that Lithuanian impersonal constructions were most likely patterned on the corresponding Polish model, which, according to him, is exempli-fied in another High Lithuanian sentence from Antanas Baranauskas' „Anyksciq silelis": taip raistq (swamp: M.GEN.PL.) if zebriaT (bison: M.NOM.PL.) tureta (have: PPP.N.SG.) ,zwischen den Sümpfen auch Auerochsen wurden gehabt,' viz., ,and there were also bison among the swamps'. The Polish influence, however, is highly dubious in this case. Suffice it to mention that this model is known to have favored since the late 14th-early 15th c. (Shevelov 1968) the association of the accusative with the incongruent passive participle (see 4).

{A)MVo\. naleziono pomocnika {\5\h.c.) find: PPP.N.SG. aide: M.ACC.SG. ,An aide has been found.' (Klemensiewicz et al. 1964, 432-435)

Moreover, the nominative in impersonal constructions is, on the whole, a rare phenome-non in Polish dialects. In any case, if attested in some of its dialects, which are not geo-graphically contiguous to the western Dzükian dialect of Lithuanian, the corresponding construction may be easily disregarded in our case. To adduce a rather peculiar Illustra-tion, Bartnicka (1969, 132), while providing no source recording, cited en passant a unique example with an apparently nominative case (see 5). Yet, one can assume that this construction might be taken from a Silesian dialect where the nominative is predominantly homophonous with the accusative case even with -a stems that show a distinction in other varieties of Polish (Urbanczyk 1962, 27-28). The coalescence of the accusative case with the nominative as a result of the denasilization of the front nasal is encountered in particu-lar in the area situated between Brzeg, Namystöwo, Kluczbork, and Niemodlino, although scattered examples of -a (< q) are centered in the vast Silesian area (Zar?ba 1980, map 1200).

(5) Pol. dial. gotowano woda prepare: PPP.N.SG. water: F.ACC.SG. ,One has boiled water.'

Polish influence aside, one is left with a possible „common" Belarusian-Lithuanian syn-tactic pattern, which can hardly be treated as a transitional phenomenon of Polish interfer-ence in some eastem Lithuanian dialects. It is noteworthy that the bulk of Belarusian im-personals, both with the nominative and the accusative case, comes from the northeastem




and southem outskirts of the Belarusian-speaking territory. In other words, the corre-sponding examples were recorded in regions adjacent to Russian dialects, which have primarily the nominative case in non-agreeing constructions, and Ukrainian dialects with the accusative case in non-agreeing constructions (Karskij 1956, 317; Shevelov 1969, 172-173). More generally, the bulk of the impersonal constructions seem to be attested in mixed dialect areas, a fact, which is most explicitly corroborated by some Belarusian-Lithuanian syntactic parallels as discussed by Grinaveckene [Grinaveckiene] (1972). In the latter case, however, the Situation appears less clear, especially if one takes into consideration the so-called akan 'je. Differences between strong and dissimilative akan 'je aside, it should be noted only that under akan je, unstressed o and a tend to coalesce into one sound. Within this system, the neuter and feminine nominal forms of the past passive participle do not differ from each other. Thus, Bei. zabita (kill: PPP.N.SG.) ,killed' may be treated either as an agreeing feminine form in the passive (agreeing) construction or as a neuter in the impersonal construction with disrupted agreement. In the long run, such a phonemic coalescence is likely to have contributed to the elimination of the latter con-struction in Belarusian (Shevelov 1969, 173). Remarkably, the above akan je is also attested in some examples cited by Grinaveckene [Grinaveckiene] (1972, 407), in particular in the following Belarusian impersonal sentence (6a):

(6a) Bei. dial. partki pasyta pants: NOM.PL. sew: P P P . N . S G . ,The pants have been made.'

For our case, of utmost importance is the fact that the above Belarusian participle pasyta coincides word-fmally with the suffix -(t)a of the Lithuanian participle in the parallel sen-tence (6b):

(6b) Lith. keines pasiüta pants: NOM.PL. sew: P P P . N . S G . ,The pants have been made.'

In view of such phonetic similarities, a Student is left with two options open. On the one hand, the Belarusian impersonal construction can be influenced by its Lithuanian counter-part. On the other hand, the Belarusian akan je, as realized in past passive participles like pasyta, may support the existence of impersonal constructions in some Aukstaitian dia-lects spoken in mixed areas. Granted for specific socio-linguistic conditions in these areas during the Polish-Lithuanian Union and later, I am inclined to opt for the latter explana-tion as the most plausible. However, in some Lithuanian dialects and sporadically in Standard Lithuanian, one en-counters also the accusative of the direct object with the past or present passive participle in the impersonal structure (LKG, II, 53; III, 37; Valeckiene 1984, 169-170). To use the example (3) from Baranauskas' „Anyksciq silelis", it would be instructive to mention an-other Aukstahian variant with the accusative direct object, first cited by Geitler (1875, 46, 48, 61) and subsequently discussed by Fraenkel (1921, 39; id. 1928, 98):

(7) Lith. Senil misküs myleta tülon giesmen däa old :GEN.PL. fo re s t :M.ACC.PL . l o v e : P P P . n . s g . m a n y song : lLLAT.SG. p u t : P P P . N . S G .



152 ZfSl 50 (2005) 2

,The ancients loved forests and made many songs about them, müsn tevelin visäs täs giesmes moketa our ancestoriM.GEN.PL. alliF.ACC.PL. this:F.ACC.PL. song:F.ACC.PL.know:PPP.n.sg. our ancestors knew all these songs.'

3.1. Impersonal constructions with the accusative case in Jablonskis' puristic program

In contrast to the nominative, which is considered Standard in non-agreeing Lithuanian constructions (Ambrazas 1997, 485), the accusative case of the direct object, as well as a functionally equivalent genitive (Valeckiene 1998, 282; Ambrazas 1979, 207), has been viewed by some students (Fraenkel 1928, 97-98; Matthews 1955, 362ff.) as a mere PoUsh calque, which should be dropped. It is interesting that in the press of the beginning of the 20th c. constructions formed with the neuter past participles and the accusative of the di-rect object were conspicuously widespread. However, as early as 1905, Jonas Jablonskis, a famous Lithuanian language reformer, started to correct them, while replacing the accusa-tive with the nominative, which he regarded as indigenous, and in others the neuter parti-ciple with a masculine or feminine participle or even a verb (Pirockinas 1986, 187). It comes then as no surprise that in his famous grammar, with its final edition published in 1922 (Rygiskiii [Jablonskis] Jonas 1922, 141), there is not a Single example of the imper-sonal construction with the accusative case of the direct object (see Fraenkel 1921, 38-39). More tellingly, among two examples with the nominative case in the impersonal environ-ment, Jablonskis cited in his grammar the well-known example (3) from the "Anyksciii silelis" of Antanas Baranauskas with the nominative case, thus ostensibly disregarding the second variant with the accusative direct object (see 7). It follows from the above that, while striving for a synthesis of native rural components with a minimum of assimilated European ones, Jablonskis regarded the nominative case as indigenous in impersonal constructions. This Standpoint was most likely shared by other representatives of the Lithuanian national revival in the late 19th c., apparently by Silvestras Gimzauskas (1845-1897) who was a Speaker of the Utena (East Aukstaitian) dialect. In his writings, one comes typically across the nominative case in the impersonal environment, as in his „Likmenes" of 1870, although dubious cases are also possible like in: Padarita (put up: PPP.N.SG.) musztines (fight: F.NOM./ACC.(?)PL.) ,A fight has been put up' (Volteris 1903,1, 206). All in all, the stance of Jablonskis and other representatives of the national revival indirectly testifies to an „alien" status of the accusative case in the Lithuanian language system of that time, first and foremost in the South-West Aukstaitian dialect of the so-called suvalkieciai region, which had long remained outside the influence of the Slavic east and Curonian west (Zinkevicius 1987, II, 258-260). Even today, the functional status of the impersonal constructions with the accusative case, used sporadi-cally in different parts of Lithuania, in particular in the Zemaitian dialect, remains rather precarious. While being fastidiously admitted into the modern literary Standard (Pa-lauskiene 1979, 105), which has its origin in the archaic West Aukstaitian dialect, these constructions have acquired „special meanings" (Ambrazas 1997, 281, 661), euphemisti-cally labeled as „stylistic" and „modal" (LKG, II, 53), thus referring either to evidential (Musteikis 1972, 214) or continuous, constantly occurring action in certain circumstances. Since discrete and concrete actions are barely covered by these „special meanings", the



A. DANYLENKO, Iitipersonal constructions with the accusative case in Lithuanian and Slavic 153

correction in (8) by Jablonskis in the early 20th c. (Pirocicinas 1986, 187) looks quite le-gitimate:

(8) Lith. Pernai desimtl zmoniii ciäpakore (in place of *pakärta-'ha.ng\ PPP.N.SG.) Last year ten: ACC.SG. people: M.GEN.PL. here hang: PRET.Spl. ,Last year [they] hanged ten men here.'

With regard to the puristic program of Jablonskis, one should note its unique and „effec-tive" character within the general Polish-Lithuanian linguistic context, especially if one compares his program with Polish linguistic purism as propounded, to no avail, by Alek-sander L?towski in the late 19th c. (Spires 2003, 612). Widely adopted and successfully realized, Jablonskis' proposed reforms of Lithuanian included consistent rem oval of loan words and constructions from the Slavic languages, in particular from Polish and East Slavic, which since the time of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth have been heavily influencing Lithuanian (Senn 1944, 110; Zinkevicius 1988, III, 114-115). Thus, granted for Jablonskis' puristic methodology, premised largely on the West Aukstaitian dialectal features, one is tempted to look at the Lithuanian accusative case used in the impersonal environment as a syntactic construction pattemed on an alien, Polish model. This assump-tion can be corroborated by diachronic evidence.

4. Diachronic evidence

On the whole, historical evidence of the „progressive replacement" of the nominative by the accusative case in the impersonal environment is scarce and far less persuasive as en-visaged by the propounders of the natural shift from the passive to the impersonal con-struction in Lithuanian. The paucity of facts is observable in the written language used both in the Duchy of Prussia (Zemaitian dialect territory) (see section 4.1) and in Lithua-nia Major (Aukstaitian dialect territory), with its „Samogitian" (see section 4.2) and „Prussian" (see section 4.3) interdialects, formed during the integrating process in the 16th-17thc.

4.1. The Zematian Data

It is instructive to mention here the first Lithuanian book, Mazvydas' Catechism of 1547. While phonemically showing South Zemaitian dialect features (with some exceptions in Vilentas' text), this record, along with Mazvydas' small books, e. g., „Giesme Sv. Ambra-ziejaus" („The Hymn of St. Ambrose", 1549) (Dini 1994, 46, 52, 82ff.), is heavily mod-eled on Polish written tradition, including vocabulary, morphology, and syntax (Zinke-vicius 1988, III, 29-32). Most remarkably, although the indigenous syntax is poorly repre-sented in Mazvydas' Catechism, this record offers, nevertheless, no reliable examples of the nominative subject or object in the impersonal construction. The only impersonal pat-tem is found in an obvious Slavic (Polish) calque, [...] kaipo (as) fchw^ntaie Euangelyaie (holy Oespels: LOC.) parafchyt (write: PPP.N.SG.) irä (is) ,as is written in the Holy Scrip-tures' (MC 1547, 24), a formula which is commonly found in medieval religious texts written or copied in ethnic Lithuanian territories, e. g., in Sirvydas' „Punktai sakymi^" („Gospel Points", vols. I-II, 1629 and 1644): Lith. taip parasita / r a / P o l . iako napisano



154 ZFSL 50 (2005) 2

(PS/1629,1, 16) or Lith. kaip knigase iraparasita/Vol. iako w ksiqgach iest napisano (ib., 239).

4.2. The „Samogitian" Data

Most telling in this respect is Merkeiis Petkevicius' Calvinist Catechism (1598), which represents the „Samogitian" language (of the historic Duchy of Samogitia) with its rela-tively archaic grammar. The latter is not obscured by the fact that this record was hastily prepared and slavishly translated from Polish with many loan words, thus remaining con-spicuously unpolished and rightly considered the first example of the jargonistic language written in Lithuanian (Zinkevicius 1988, III, 196-198). To illustrate its indigenous syntax, the text is characterized by a native, apparently West Aukstaitian tendency to use peri-phrastic constructions (more than 200x) to render passive meaning. It is interesting that only one (sie!) reflexive form, clearly modeled on the Polish equivalent, is used by Petke-vicius in this function: tatay (this) kalbafi (= Pol. fi^ möwi) (say:PRES.REFL.3SG.) ape (about) tuos (thisiM.PL.ACC.) ,this is said about it' (Jakuliene 1968, 216-217). However, despite his predilection for periphrastic passives, the author is clearly inclined to replace in some cases the Polish neuter past participles in both passive and impersonal constructions with fmite verbs, especially if the agent is known, e. g., möwiono (say: PPP.N.SG.) ,it has been said' next to kalbeio (say: PRET.SPL.) ,they said' (Fraenkel 1947, 93-94). . Strikingly enough, similar substitutions are found in one other „Samogitian" record, more representative from the Standpoint of its highly accurate and literary translation of the Pol-ish original, to wit Mikolajus Dauksa's Postile of 1599. Alongside a few cliched imper-sonal constructions used in both Polish and Lithuanian texts, e. g., Pol. iz (that) napisano (write: PPP.N.SG.) / Lith. iogparafzlta (write: PPP.N.SG.) ' [ . . . ] it is written' (PC, 73.36; Volteris 1903, I, 49-50, 43-44), the Lithuanian text of sermons demonstrates a clear ten-dency to use fmite verbs in place of Polish impersonal constructions which appear for these cases stylistically unmarked. A typical example is the following: Pol. gdy (when) mu (he: DAT.) powiedziano (teil: PPP.N.SG) ,when he has been told' as compared with Lith. kad' (when) iam' (he: DAT.) paffäke (teil: PRET.3SG.) ,when [he] told him' (PC, 73.16; Volteris, I, 47-48). Returning to Petkevicius' syntax, presumably influenced by Slavic adstratum, most in-structive are Polish examples with the accusative case marking of the direct object, a pat-tern, which was already rather typical of middle Polish impersonal constructions. Among three examples excerpted by Fraenkel from the Polish original, one may cite the follow-ing:

(9a) Pol. los miotano lot: M.ACC.SG. cast: PPP.N.SG. ,The lots were cast.'

(9b) Lith. burtas mete lot: F.ACC.PL. cast: PRET.3SG. ,The lots were cast.' (Brückner 1891, 589)

The Lithuanian translation (9b) is based on a fmite verb used in the active construction where the accusative plural marks here a noun form with the stem in -ä, i. e., burta (F.)




,lot, die' (see Kazlauskas 1968, 189), commonly used in medieval Lithuanian, e. g., in the writings of Mazvydas (Zinkevicius 1988, III, 35).

4.3. The "Lithuanian" Data

One of the most representative middle Lithuanian texts, written in the eastem (Vilnius) lit-erary variant, is two series of sermons, „Punktai sakymii" („Punkty kazan"), with a paral-lel text published in Lithuanian and Polish by the Jesuit Konstantinas Sirvydas (Polonized Syrwid) in Vilnius in 1629 volume I and (posthumously, by Jonas Jaknavicius) in 1644 volume II. It is noteworthy that, while preaching in Lithuanian, Sirvydas used in the origi-nal text the eastern literary variant, which was under predominantly Polish influenae (PS, 10). Yet, what is more striking is that the syntax of this record is Lithuanian, contains many folk expressions, and the sentences flow smoothly and clearly (Zinkevicius 1988, III, 262). It should be also emphasized that, along with Jaknavicius' translation of the Gospels into Lithuanian and Cardinal R. Belarminas' translation of the catechism (pub-lished in 1677), Sirvydas' „Punktai sakymij" shows clearly an Hast Aukstaitian tendency to use, instead of periphrastic constructions, reflexive forms as quasi-passive (see Am-brazas 1997, 232); e. g., in Jaknavicius' translation [...] Ms kalbeios (say: PRES.REFL.3SG.) against Pol. o czym möwii (say: PRET.3sg.) ,about what he told' (Jakuliene 1968, 217-218). In view of the above tendency, it becomes clear why, apart from rather numerous cliched formulae in Middle Lithuanian texts, e. g., in Mazvydas' Catechism and Sirvydas' „Punk-tai sakymq" (see 4.1), Polish preference for the impersonal construction, especially with the accusative case fails to be matched in Sirvydas' language which relies in such cases on personal constructions, in particular with the fmite verb, used in any mood (11).

{\\)ML\Xh.. Adunt ii diagintu ir sakintu so that he:ACC. burn:SUBJ.ACT.3sg. and torment:SUBj.ACT.3sg. aby go palono y meczonono in Order he:ACC. burn: PPP.N.SG. and torment:PPP.N.SG. ,that he would be burnt and tormented

per umzius t h rough centuries:M.ACC. na wieki for centuriesiM.ACC. for ever.' (PS/1644, II, 160; Matthews 1955, 359)

5. Ukrainian-Belarusian literary Standard vs. Polish-Lithuanian bilingualism

It follows tentatively from the data discussed in sections 4-4.3, that impersonal construc-tions with the nominative case and a non-agreeing neuter predicate were more common in the east than in the west of ethnic Lithuanian territories in the 16th-17th c. The Situation was obviously prone to change in the aftermath of the demise of the eastem („Lithuanian") written language as the result of heavy Polonization of the Vilnius aristocracy and landed gentry, which is likely to have influenced the progressive replacement of the nominative by the accusative in the impersonal constructions. Thus, Polish influence is discemable in the predominant use of reflexive passives in the eastem (Vilnius) literary variant in the



156 ZfSI 50 (2005) 2

17th c. as compared with periphrastic passives, which were clearly preponderant in both literary and folkloric texts extant firom Lithuania Minor. To provide an obvious example, it is worthwhile citing a series of regulär passives in (12) excerpted from a Zemaitian folk song recorded in the 19th c. by Liudvikas Reza (1964, 63; Volteris 1903,1, 165), which all are based on the agreeing pattem with patient-salient nominatives.

(12) Lith. dial. Rütos mmintos, rozes nuskintos, Rue:F.NOM.PL.stamp:PPP.F.PL. rose:F.NOM.PL. pluck:PPP.F.PL. ,The rues are stomped upon, the roses are plucked, Lelijos islankstytos, rasuze nubarstyta Hly:F.NOM.PL. bend:PPP.F.PL. dew:F.NOM.SG.drop:PPP.F.SG. the lilies are bent, the dewdrops are scattered'

I rather suspect that the overall picture of the distribution of impersonal and passive con-structions in the history of Lithuanian might have appeared different, had we had solid sta-tistics and representative isoglosses in the modern Lietuviii kalbos atlasas. Still a possible difference could hardly change this picture drastically in view of prevailingly scarce at-testation of impersonal constructions in Middle Lithuanian. It comes then as no surprise that only a few of them have been commonly cited in historical grammars and reference books since the 19th c. Among these rare examples, one can mention, incidentally, an im-personal construction with the accusative object and a present passive participle as found in the evangelical Postile of Wolfenbüttel from 1573. First cited by Wilhem Gaigalat [Gaigalaitis] (1900, 238) and subsequently discussed by Fraenkel (1928, 98), this sentence is also found in Ambrazas (1990, 205):

(13) MLith. tikrii kuni{ [...], tikrii kraughi trueiM.ACC.SG. body:M.ACC.SG. true:M.ACC.SG. blood:M.ACC.SG. ,True b o d y [ . . . ] , t rue b l o o d

ira walgama ir gerama is eat:PrPP.SG.N. and drink:PrPP.SG.N. are being eaten and drunk.'

What seems more relevant for the reconstruction of the Lithuanian impersonal morpho-syntax is the socio-linguistic Situation in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the Union of 1569. It must be conceded that, used in the boundaries of this federation, Polish and Lithuanian were juxtaposed by Ukrainian and Belarusian, subsequently amalgamated in the „prostaja mova" on the basis of Script, which was of vital importance for the East Slavic Orthodox believers in their contest with the Polish Catholicism. With an eye to determining the extent of Polish-Lithuanian interrelationship and compar-ing it with the Ukrainian-Belarusian literary Standard („prostaja mova"), one may consider Moser's (2002, 237f f ) claim that a prototypical text written in the „prostaja mova" was a mere „translation" of a real or Virtual Polish text. Its phonology and morphology heavily „ruthenized", the text used to retain the Polish lexicon and, what is vital for our case, Syn-tax. One can, therefore, adhere to Shevelov (1968; id. 1969, 180), who argued that the im-personal construction with the accusative object (see 4) was borrowed, in the 15th-16th c., from Polish into Ukrainian and Belarusian. Polish stands out, then, as the core of innova-tive use of the non-agreeing constructions with the accusative object, not only in this the-




ory, but in other approaches assuming the pivotal role of Polish in the diffusion of the above constructions, presumably in the time of the Polish-Lithuanian Union, untill the in-corporation of Lithuania into the Russian Empire in 1795, when the State language obvi-ously changed from Polish to Russian. This Said, it is tempting to posit for the time of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth a complex interdependence of morphosyntaxes not only between Polish and Ukrainian-Belarusian, residually retained in the so-called „common" (Belarusian) language in dialec-tally mixed territories in Eastem Lithuania, but also between Polish and Lithuanian. The latter is historically represented in a specific Lithuanian Polish language („polszczyzna litewska"), which was used both by the Poles, who started moving into Lithuania afiter 1569, and by the Lithuanian nobility and gentry. It should be noted, nevertheless, that Pol-ish-Lithuanian amalgamation (bilingualism) among Lithuanians was limited not only to the written discourse as realized largely by educated bilinguals, accustomed to switching from one language code to another, but also to the dialects. Polish influence on Lithuanian resulted first in borrowing of words and subsequently in morphosyntactic interference (Thomason-Kaufman 1988, 37-39). Due to consistent Polonization of the eastern variant of the written Lithuanian language in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, interference through the imperfect learning of Vilnius bilingual speakers in the mid-17th c. (Zinkevicius 1996, 254) may have provoked a replacement of the nominative case form by the accusative case in the impersonal environment. While being alien to the morphosyntax of contemporary Lithuanian impersonal constructions, this interference could have been supported by the historical weakening of the neuter (Ambrazas 1979, 207-209), although that doesn't nec-essarily make this replacement a „natural shift" in Lithuanian (see Valeckiene 1984, 166ff.). To provide strong prima facie evidence of the typological irrelevancy of this change in Lithuanian, there is an interesting example excerpted from the vemacular of Polish-Lithuanian bilinguals who are largely open to interference, eventually through language shift. Thus, in a folktale recorded recently in the Jonava region by Adomaviciute-Cekmonene ([Adomaviciüte-Cekmoniene] 2003, 150, 152), a Polish-Lithuanian bilingual uses in his Polish an active syntactic pattem (14b) instead of a Standard impersonal con-struction with the form in *-to (14b):

(14a) Pol. dial. [..] zeby jegu psyjeli du tej skoly so that he:ACC.accept:PRET.3PL. to that schooliM.GEN.SG.

(14b) Pol. [...] zeby go przyjqto do tej szkoty so that he:ACC.accept:PPP.SG.N. to that school:M.GEN.SG. ,That he would be enrolled in that school.'

In his Lithuanian, however, the Informant stops short of using any impersonal construc-tion, which remains therefore outside his communicative scope for this case. This evi-dence is sketchy, but what we do have in this example seems to corroborate our thesis about the typological irrelevancy of the accusative case in the impersonal environment for Lithuanian, though the possibility of Polish triggering influence in some cases should be kept in mind.



158 ZfSl 50 (2005) 2

The latter assumption appears more compelling than not in face of the examples of the ac-cusative case, used with the present or past passive participle in the impersonal environ-ment, in LKG (1971, III, 53; 1976, 37). Most of these examples come from those dialect regions, which border with the Polish- or Belarusian-speaking territories, e. g., from Varena, Sakiai, and Lazdijai districts. Moreover, some examples are excerpted from writ-ings by those writers and scholars who are likely to have experienced influence of Polish or Belarusian, which dialectally could still retain the impersonal pattem with the accusa-tive in the 19th-20th c. (Karskij 1956, 317-318). Among them one can mention Liüdas Gira (1884-1946), who was born and brought up in Vilnius, Kazimieras Büga (1879-1924) from Dusetos district, and Juozas Tumas (1869-1933) from Rokiskis district.

6. Conclusions

The forgoing analysis of Polish interference in Lithuanian dialects and literary language suggests an explanation, which is likely to cast doubt on the so-called „natural shift" from the nominative to the accusative in the impersonal environment as claimed by Holvoet and, although with some reservations, Ambrazas. To be sure, all the evidence for Polish interference in Lithuanian as a whole is problematic, especially in the 16th-17th c., when written languages used in the Lithuanian ethnic territories were based on different local dialects. Speaking, however, about the emergence of the accusative case in the impersonal environment, it seems likely to us that the possibility of its introduction arises primarily from Polish adstratum interference throughout the East Lithuanian territory. The influence is so clear here partly, because the Polish presence has been numerically stronger in the east, which brought about the Polonization of the Vilnius aristocracy in the 16th c. on-ward, and a subsequent demise of the puristic movement (Thomas 1991, 158-159). Contrary to the borrowing in the 15th c. of similar impersonal constructions from Polish into Ukrainian and Belarusian, which are genetically closer to Polish than Lithuanian, the arrival of impersonals into Lithuanian was more recent in this area. It coincided eventually with a revival of the puristic movement in the 19th-early 20th c. in response to the intensi-fied russification following 1865. Although the interference of Ukrainian and Belarusian is harder to verify, their impersonal constructions, patterned initially on the Polish model, could have exerted additional influence in this case, especially within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and during the Polish-Lithuanian Union (1569-1795). Historical and dialect evi-dence can further our knowledge about Balto-Slavic contacts of the later historical period, represented recently by Baiode and Holvoet (2001, 45) as a „symbiosis of languages and cultures [Lithuanian, Belarusian, Polish]".

A B B R E V I A T I O N S

ACC. = accusat ive ACT. = act ive DAT. = dative F. = f emin ine GEN. = geni t ive LOC. = locative M. = mascu l ine N. = neuter NOM. = nominat ive




PL. = plural PPP = past passive participle PRET. = preterite PRPP = present passive paerticiple REFL. = reflective SG. = Singular SUBJ. = subjunctive

References ADOMAVICIUTE-CEKMONENE [ADOMAVLCLOTFI-ÖEKMONIENß], I., K xarakteristike pol 'sko-li tovskogo bi-

lingvizma poljakov Jonavskogo rajona Litvy. Kak vola uCili na lesnika. Pol ' ski j i litovskij tekst iz Jonavskogo rajona s kommentarijami, in: A . ENGELKING, R . HUSZCZA, eds., Pogranicza j^zykow. Pogranicza kultur. Studio ofiarowane Elzbiecie Smulkowej. Warszawa 2003, 139-158.

AMBRAZAS, V., Lietuviii kalbos dalyviii istorine sintakse. Vilnius 1979. AMBRAZAS, V., Sravnitel'nyJ sintaksispricastij baltijskix jazykov. Vilnius 1 9 9 0 .

AMBRAZAS, V., On the development of the nominative object in East Baltic, in; Ö. DAHL, M. KOPTJEVSKAJA-TAMM, eds., The Circum-Baltic Languages. Typology and Contact, vol. 2. Grammar andTypology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia 2001, 391-412.

BALODE, L. and A. HOLVOET, The Lithuanian language and its dialects, in: Ö . D A H L , M . KOPTJEVSKAJA-

TAMM, eds,, The Circum-Baltic Languages. Typology and Contact, vol. 1. Past and Present. Amster-dam & Philadelphia 2001, 41-79.

BARTNICKA, B., Imieslowy przymiotnikowe W gwarach polskich, in: Pracefllologiczne 19 (1969), 127-133. BH = Belaruskaja hramatyka. II. Sintaksis. Minsk 1986. BRÜCKNER, A., Der litauisch-polnische Catechismus vom Jahre 1598, in: Archiv für slavische Philologie 13

( 1 8 9 1 ) , 5 5 7 - 5 9 0 .

BYBEE, J., R. PERKINS and W. PAGLIUCA, The Evolution of grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago and London 1994.

DANYLENKO, A. Predykaty, vidminky i diatezy v ukrajins 'kij movi: istorycnyj i typologicnyj aspekty. Xarkiv 2003.

DiNl, P. U., L 'Inno di S. Ambrogio di Martynas Mazvydas. Studio fdologico-linguistico del testo antico litu-ano (1549) e delle sue fonti latine e polacche. Roma 1994.

DRRNKA, B. Areal Factors in the Development of the European Periphrastic Perfect, in: Word 54 (2003), 1-38.

ENDZELINS, J., Latviesu valodas gramatika. RTgä 1951. FRAEI^KEL, E., Baltoslavica. Beiträge zur balto-slavischen Grammatik und Syntax. Göttingen 1921. FRAENKEL, E., Syntax der litauischen Kasus. Kaunas 1928. FRAENKEL, E., Sprachliche, besonders syntaktische Untersuchung des kalvinistischen litauischen Katechis-

mus des Malcher Pietkiewicz von 1598. Göttingen 1947. GAIGALAT, W. [GAIGALAITIS, V.], Die Wolfenbütteler Mtauische Postillenhandschrift aus dem Jahre 1573,

in: Mitteilungen der Litauischen Litterarischen Gesellschaft 5 (1900), 1-57, 117-165, 231-247. GEITLER, L., Litauische Studien: Auswahl aus den ältesten denkmälern, dialectische beispiele, lexikalische

und sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge. Prag 1875. GOLAB, Z., Endocentricity and endocentrization of verbal predicates: illustrated with Latin and Slavic mate-

rial, in: General linguistics 15 (1975), 1-35. GRINAVECKENE [GRINAVECKIENE], E., Nekotorye javlenija kontaktirovanija litovskix i slavjanskix govorov

(na materiale jazykovyx kontaktov v jugo-vostoCnoj Litve), in: Balto-slavjanskiJ sbornik. M. 1972, 394-408.

HOLVOET, A., Impersonals and passives in Baltic and Finnic, in: Ö. DAHL, M. KOPTJEVSKAJA-TAMM, eds., The Circum-Baltic Languages. Typology and Contact, vol. 2. Grammar and Typology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia 2001, 363-389.

JAKULIENE, A., Lietuviii kalbos pasyvo formavimasis ir sangr^zinai veiksmazodziai, in: Baltistica 4 (1968), 211-220.



160 ZfSl 50 (2005) 2

KARSKIJ, E. F., Belorusy. Jazyk belorusskogo naroda. Vyp. 2-3. M. 1956. KAZLAUSKAS, J., Lietuviii kalbos istohne gramatika. Vilnius 1968. KLEMENSIEWICZ, Z. et al., Gramatyka historyczna jqzykapolskiego. Warszawa 1964. LESKIEN, A., Litauisches Lesebuch mit Grammatik und Wörterbuch. Heidelberg 1919. LKG = Lietuviii kalbos gramatika. Tomas II. Morfologija. 1971, Tomas III. Sintakse. Vilnius 1976. MATTHEWS, W.K., Lithuanian Constructions with Neuter Passive Participles, in: The Slavonic and East

European Review 81 (1955), 350-371. MC 1547 = GERULLIS, G., ed., Mosvid. Die ältesten litauischen Sprachdenkmäler, bis zum Jahre 1570. Hei-

delberg 1923. (Baltische Bibliothek 2) MOSER, M., Cto takoe "prostaja mova"? in: Studia Slavica Hung 47 (2002), 221-260. MUSTEIKIS, K., Gretinamoji rusi{ ir lietuvin kalbti morfologija. Vilnius 1972. PALAUSKIENE, A., Gramatines lietuviu kalbos veiksmazodzio kategorijos. Vilnius 1979. PIROCKINAS, A., Jono Jablonskio kalbos taisymai. Kaunas 1986. PC = Fortunatov, F. F., E. A. Volters, eds., 1599-1899. "Postilla Catholicka" Jakuba Vujka v litovskomper-

evode Nikolaja Dauksi. Vyp. I, 1904; Vyp. 1909; Vyp. III. Spb. 1927. PS = SPECHT, F., ed., Syrwids Punktay sakimu (Punkty kazan). Teil I: 1629, Teil II: 1644. Litauisch und

Polnisch. Göttingen 1929. REZA, L., Lietuviii laudies dainos. II. Vilnius 1964. RYGISKIU [JABLONSKIS], J., Lietuvin kalbos gramatika. Etimologija. 2nd ed. Kaunas 1922. SCHMALSTIEG, W. R., A Lithuanian Historical Syntax. Columbus, Ohio 1988. SCHMALSTIEG, W. R., The Transitivization of the Dental Preterit: A Possible Baltic-Germanic Parallel, in:

A. R. WEDEL, H.-J. BUSCH, eds., Verba et Litterae: Explorations in Germanic Languages and German Literature. Newark, Delaware 2002, 157-161.

SENN, A., Standard Lithuanian in the Making, in: The Slavonic and East European Review 22 (1944), 102-116.

SHEVELOV, G. Y., Orzeczenia bezpodmiotowe odimieslowowe na -no, -to w j^zyku polskim przed rokiem 1450, in: Slavia orientalis 17 (1968), 387-393.

SHEVELOV, G. Y., The Vicissitudes of a Syntactic Construction in Eastern Slavic (Impersonal sentences in -no, -to with the acc. sg. of object), in: Scando-Slavica 15 (1969), 171-186.

SJATKOVSKIJ, S. I., Nekotoryje voprosy tipologiieskogo i sravniterno-istoriceskogo sintaksisa, in: Voprosy JazykoznaniJa 6 (1963), 69-83.

SPIRES, S., Polish Linguistic Purism in Lithuania: The Case of Aleksander L?towski, in: The Slavonic and East European Review 81 (2003), 601-613.

THOMAS, G., Linguistic Purism. London and New York 1991. THOMASON, S. G. and T. KAUFMAN', Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley,

Los Angeles and Oxford 1988. TIMBERLAKE, A., The Nominative Object in Slavic, Baltic, and West Finnic. München 1974. {Slavistische

Beiträge: 82). URBANCZYK, S., Zarys dialektologiipolskiej. 2nd ed. Warszawa 1962. VALECKIENE, A., Lietuvin kalbos gramatine sistema. Gimines kategorija. Vilnius 1984. VALECKIENE, A., Funkeine lietuvin kalbos gramatika. Vilnius 1998. VOLTERIS, E., Lietüviska chrestomatija. Vyp. I-II. Sanktpeterburg 1903-1904. ZAR^BA, A., Atlas j^zykowy Slqska. T. VI, Warszawa, Krakow 1980. ZINKEVICLUS, Z., Lietuvin kalbos istorija. II. Iki pirmiuu raätu, 1987; III. Seniiju raätu kalba. Vilnius 1988. ZINKEVICLUS, Z., The History of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius 1996.

Prof. Dr. Andrii Danylenko, vul. Derewyanko 22 kv. 15, 310103 Charkiv, Ukraine {danylenk@lincom. kharkov. ua)



impersonals in lithuanian and slavic

Documents